Allison Stokke

Here's the rest of that story, Zagoshe. They were involved in a legal battle. It's all public record. It's Florida. Apples to oranges.

But there's a twist: The state attorney general's office is investigating whether Thomas had something to do with her husband's injuries, raising the prospect of criminal charges. Thomas claims her husband was injured when he tripped over a dog in the kitchen.

The ruling could set an informal precedent and influence other courts, said Jacksonville media attorney George Gabel.

Gabel, who represented the TV stations against Thomas, successfully fought off the defamation suit by, in part, pointing to web coverage of the plaintiff's legal battle over her brain-damaged husband.

"It's sort of judicial recognition of the importance of internet news," Gabel said. "It shows the power of individuals on the internet."

Judges often will look at media coverage to see if someone fits the criteria to be a public figure. But in the Thomas case (.pdf), there hadn't been any traditional media coverage; only internet denizens had been involved.

Will the ruling -- which could still be appealed -- have any impact? It only affects northeast Florida, where Cole is a local judge, but other courts could look at it for guidance when they tackle similar cases.

Randall Bezanson, a University of Iowa law professor and media law specialist, is doubtful it will have a wider impact.

Bezanson said the judge made a bad decision because Thomas didn't act to inject herself into a public controversy -- one of the criteria for determining a public figure -- but was simply trying to protect her rights.

"(Someone doesn't) become a public figure just because a newspaper or some part of the media picks (a story) up and makes a big deal of it," Bezanson said.

Still, "one might imagine that there's going to be a lot more public figure issues that arise, and there may be a rise in the number of libel suits because the volume of talk has been greatly increased."

 

I'm not rooting for tougher laws, I'm just attentive to what they are.

 

No I didn't avoid the question, I posted an article about a court case that seems to shoot your theory about who is a public figure and who is not to shit.

And you are the sanctimonious asshole, you fucking douchebag.

Any time you want to try and be civil, look me up. As long as you keep trying to be a dickhead and a little rah rah piss ant, I'll treat you as such.

 

One case in Flordia does not change the SC decision on the matter.

Care to enlighten us as to what case controls the issue?

 

What do you mean it is Florida so it is apples to oranges? Your case is in West Virginia, not California, which I would be willing to bet might have a much more broad definition of what a public figure is than West Virginia.

 

It does show that different courts have different standards on the issue.

And this is for you Zeke

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

 

From your own link, (emphasis mine):

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure.

You got served, chump.

 

The judge in West Virginia was too strict and the judge in Florida is nuts. The answer lies somewhere in the middle but it may take years to figure it out.

I really don't think Stokke's dad has much legal recourse, other than just to keep filing cease and desist notices for websites posting her photos without permission.

But it's just wrong to imply that this girl invited this upon herself by having her own myspace account and participating in sports.

 

Oh you served me, chump. Just shut the fuck up. Please you are such a little pissant and nerd it is annoying.

From my own link -- the first god damn sentence is -- The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried.

 

I admitted I should not have blamed the victim because I didn't realize she hadn't created her own web-site as I originally thought. That was ten pages ago.

And the middle paragraph is what I have contended since about the third page of this thread. I don't think there is any legal case here for much of anything.

And your first paragraph -- that sounds like you are admitting that whether she is a public figure, a limited public figure or not a public figure depends on what court the case is tried in. And I'd say given what she has accomplished and how well known she has become and the fact that she is 18 likely puts her somewhere in between the West Virginia and the Florida case.

And this is very telling from that West Virginia case -- the mere fact of playing on a high-school football team, or little-league baseball team, or a college golf team, is not in and of itself" enough to make a person a public figure, the court concluded.

Once again, she isn't just an ordinary participant in prep sports.

 

First, zagoshe says:

Sounds like he thinks the issue is pretty, "cut and dried," if you'll pardon the expression.

But then, when confronted with this:

He replies with this:

I thought is was cut and dried? Didn't you just say that she was a public figure, and anyone who didn't think so... Oh, I have such trouble remembering, let's just let you speak for yourself:

Owned, bitch.